We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you.More infoYou can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policy.

PLEASE NOTE:

Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion

If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]

This article is so shameful. Newborn babies feel,breathe,bleed, and
learn. Once a baby is born, (I believe the moment it is conceived but that
is a different discussion), it is a person with rights. Who are you or
their parents to take away their opportunity to make a contribution to the
world? No one took away this author's opportunities in life by killing
them the moment after birth. No, no one had the right, no one even...

This article is so shameful. Newborn babies feel,breathe,bleed, and
learn. Once a baby is born, (I believe the moment it is conceived but that
is a different discussion), it is a person with rights. Who are you or
their parents to take away their opportunity to make a contribution to the
world? No one took away this author's opportunities in life by killing
them the moment after birth. No, no one had the right, no one even thought
about it. Once you were here that was it. Also, there are plenty of people
who would love to adopt a baby(disabled or not) and what right do you have
to suggest that opportunity should be destroyed? Babies are such innocent
creatures that have the potential to become anything if given some
encouragement let alone a chance to survive. Trying to "play God" is a
dangerous road and I don't recommend it for anyone.

Establishing Personhood
A recent publication of modern philosophical thought by two ethicists from
Melbourne, Australia, both with ties to Oxford University, Dr. Alberto
Guibilini and Dr. Francesca Minerva's "Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the
Baby Live?" published February 23, 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics,
takes Descartes founding principle of modern philosophical thought: "I
think, therefore I am," to its log...

Establishing Personhood
A recent publication of modern philosophical thought by two ethicists from
Melbourne, Australia, both with ties to Oxford University, Dr. Alberto
Guibilini and Dr. Francesca Minerva's "Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the
Baby Live?" published February 23, 2012 in the Journal of Medical Ethics,
takes Descartes founding principle of modern philosophical thought: "I
think, therefore I am," to its logical conclusion. The authors rationally
demonstrate their premise: since it is thinking that defines a human
being's existence, a human being that does not think is not a "person" and
in that lack, does not exist.
Therefore, they argue, if the philosophical term "personhood" is not
conferred to a fetus, why would it be conferred to an infant after it is
born?
Of course, based on their premise, they are right. Intellectually and
biologically an infant and a fetus are basically the same. So the authors
use the same philosophical argument that an infant is as worthless as a
fetus and the value of an infant's life should be determined by the same
parameters as that of the fetus' life: whether it is wanted or not.
Guibilini and Minerva's paper opens a Pandora's Box that segues Western
society to freely confer or remove "personhood" and ergo the legal
protections from any human being whose thinking may be compromised:
dementia patients, the mentally ill, stroke victims, PTSD, brain injuries,
autistic persons and those under 25 years of age whose pre-frontal cortex
is not yet mature.
Realizing that the argument further injects a "value" judgement that
becomes the very definition of human life, should cause all thoughtful
persons to remember that scientific theories underpinned laws leading to
horrors in human history: the Laws of Human Slavery and Chattel; Hitler's
Operation T-4; the Lebensborn Experiment; the Nuremberg Laws; based on
the American Jim Crow Laws; and those based on the Statutes of Kilkenny.
The obvious problem with Guibilini and Minerva's argument is that the
premise is flawed. To accept as a philosophical truth Descartes "I think,
therefore I am," defies logic. To fix the failed logic in the premise and
force it to work, philosophers assigned value to function (think) and
separated potential function from actual function. What wasn't done was to
focus on the agent that compels the verb "think" to action--"I". Man is
not merely function, but force as well. There is no effect without a
cause. "It is not thought that determines existence, but existence,
'esse,' that determines thought" -- St. Thomas Aquinas.
Thinking is merely one process in the state of being. The part does not
equal the whole. Rather, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
No one can have any function without first existing. If a philosophical
principle can be doubted prima facie intellectually, linguistically and
logically, then it is not a universal truth applicable to reality. If it
were, then replacing think with any other intransitive verb should not
make the sentence less true, but it does: I throw, therefore I am; I eat,
therefore I am; I lie, therefore I am--all are functions of a human's
nature, not the definition of it.
Modern philosophy failed to question the validity of its premise. Our duty
is to ask why ? If we don't, as history attests, once a society freely
agrees to the definition of a dehumanizing "value" for one segment of the
population for the "greater good," slowly but surely the definition of
those that qualify expands.

Conflict of Interest:

In my senior year at Case Western Reserve University, I took a course
on satiric writing. I wrote a paper responding to the Roe v. Wade
decision, showing the logical result of proclaiming unborn babies were not
human. Sadly, Minerva & Giubilini have fulfilled one of my
predictions. Here is the paper from 34 years ago:

In my senior year at Case Western Reserve University, I took a course
on satiric writing. I wrote a paper responding to the Roe v. Wade
decision, showing the logical result of proclaiming unborn babies were not
human. Sadly, Minerva & Giubilini have fulfilled one of my
predictions. Here is the paper from 34 years ago:

The Final Solution to Overpopulation

Of course, abortion is the best form of birth control. Condoms break,
you can forget to take the pill, and IUDs can pierce a woman's uterus and
scar and injure her. Spermicidal jellies and foams are messy and not
likely to be used. Tubule ligation and vasectomies work only for those who
are willing to make such a commitment, as does abstinence. Pregnancies
caused by birth control mistakes are proverbial in our culture. The surest
solution to the world's greatest problem, that of overpopulation, is
abortion. It is safe when done early in pregnancy, and 100% certain to
eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, abortion doesn't go far enough
in reducing population growth, and in reducing population itself.

The world's population has increased nearly three billion since the
landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade in 1973. World population
under the best estimates will stabilize at eleven billion after 2050. The
world's ecosystem is already severely stressed with the six billion people
on the earth. More needs to be done to reduce population. What is the next
step?

Roe v. Wade determined the first 23 weeks of pregnancy are eligible
for abortion since the fetus is not yet viable. More recent court rulings
have permitted abortions through the last trimester of pregnancy for the
health of the mother, mental and physical. Using the principle of
"viability" and the principle of what is best for the mental and physical
health of humanity, the next logical step is to permit "post natal
abortions" (PNAs) on non-viable "post natal fetuses" (PNFs).

Although the majority of PNFs are wanted, not a single PNF is viable.
It cannot survive without an adult caregiver. Further, they are a mental
and physical burden upon the caregiver and should not be permitted to live
without the full and willing desire of the caregiver. Why should PNFs be
permitted to burden our sorely taxed ecosystem by allowing unwanted ones
to grow to full maturity? Is it not kinder, gentler, and more humane to
safely terminate them should the caregiver find them a burden? Is not the
caregiver fully within their privacy rights to manage this life form
within their own home as they see fit?

There need be no moral qualms about this policy whatsoever. Our
society has already established the legal morality of abortion up through
the end of the third trimester. What difference should the simple process
of parturition make to morality of removing a non-viable life form from a
possibly miserable existence? Just as abortion removes the burden of an
unwanted fetus from society, so a PNA can terminate the mental and
physical burden of an undesired PNF. A simple injection of potassium
cyanide or a pill of the same can quickly and painlessly remove this
ecological disaster waiting to happen.

The benefits of PNA's cannot be exaggerated. They are safer than
abortions in the third trimester. They alleviate a financial burden on the
family and society in general, reserving resources for those individuals
chosen to enter the human family. With a worldwide policy of PNAs, all
individuals will be wanted. Without undesired PNFs, the negative influence
of humanity upon the earth will decrease, not increase. Air and water
pollution will begin to decrease. The welfare rolls will decrease,
reducing the tax burden.

Yet, even a vigorous, worldwide program of PNAs, administrated under
the auspices of the United Nation's World Health Organization (WHO) does
not go far enough. There are millions and billions of individuals
worldwide who are no longer viable. Although they were human at one time,
they are no longer self-supporting. Many can no longer communicate and are
not conscious. They are all draining society's resources and all require
care of some other human being. Using the same moral principle as Roe v.
Wade and other pro-abortion rulings, we may safely and ethically consider
such entities as "post human lives" (PHLs). In view of human induced
global warming and the possible worldwide catastrophe that is pending, is
it not nobler to remove these life forms from existence than to permit
them to continue to consume the world's limited resources? Such an act of
mercy would spare the functioning, productive humanity this unwanted
burden, and more importantly, would reduce the space pressures humanity
puts on endangered species worldwide. Concurrent with a program of PNAs
there must be a worldwide program of "post human abortions" (PHAs).

As good as PNAs would be, PHAs would be even better. PHLs consume far
more resources than PNFs. All the benefits enumerated for PNAs would be
multiply true for PHAs. Society would become free of all individuals who
are not productive. Taxes could be reduced, or the freed up funds could go
toward art, literature, and good public works. Cares and worries of old
age would be a thing of the past. Once a person becomes a burden to
anyone, they are simply considered a PHL and given a gentle PHA. The
social security trust fund will become adequate and even generous, with a
reduced future burden upon working humanity.

PNAs and PHLs have benefits even beyond these. They will give birth
to a new age of medical research. There will be an unlimited supply of
organs and stem cells for the benefit of human population. Very likely,
the human lifetime will be considerably extended. This will create
additional population pressure, so PNAs and PHAs need to be executed and
enforced ubiquitously.

How is a sweeping, worldwide program of PNAs and PHAs best to be
administrated and implemented? It should start with the UN. As part of UN
membership, every country should have laws that require every caregiver to
sign a certificate of humanity to their offspring or to any non-viable
entity in their care. At a minimum, these certificates should be renewed
annually, like drivers' licenses. Each country may add additional
requirements for their definition of viable humanity. This allows each
country to retain its own sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. By
entrusting such a critical definition to each federal government, we can
be sure the same care and wisdom shown in governmental taxing and welfare
programs will be applied toward this critical program of PNAs and PHAs.

It is expected that some countries will put political requirements
into their definition of humanity, some will put religious requirements,
some physical requirements, such as a certain height, weight, body build,
or skin color. Aside from promoting cultural diversity, this mosaic of
laws will catch PHL's who travel from one country to another and further
reduce world population. The varied laws will also purify the human gene
pool, catching the ignorant and unwary, classifying them as PHLs and
terminating them, protecting mother Earth from the corrosive effects of
their former human existence.

Even such a beneficial program will surely have opposition. Religious
extremists and radical anarchists are likely to resist blessing mankind
with a healthier, less intrusive life upon this earth. A simple and
effective method of dealing with such evil-minded beings is to classify
them as PHLs and perform PHAs upon them. This action will quickly bring
about worldwide consensus for this uniquely effective approach to
population control.

With unwanted PNFs eliminated through PNAs, with burdensome PHLs
removed through PHAs, with humanity's genetic lines improved through the
forced evolutionary selection of diverse laws worldwide, a new age will
dawn. No longer will pollution wreck our planet's rivers, lakes, and
oceans. No longer will smog dominate cities. No longer will teeming
millions suffer and starve. No longer will species die out through human
encroachment upon their habitats. With the moral principles put forth in
Roe v. Wade, logically extended and applied, humanity will joyfully march
forward into a brave, new world.

Conflict of Interest:

I am a Christian, subject to Jesus Christ. There are no other competing interests.

My second response is: this is one long attempt, disguised in pseudo-
learned language and academic words, to justify and rationalise the
killing of infants. The language, and the reputation of the journals in
which it is published, are meant to blind us to the sheer immorality of
what they propose. But with however much academic pomp they propose their
theory, even a ch...

My second response is: this is one long attempt, disguised in pseudo-
learned language and academic words, to justify and rationalise the
killing of infants. The language, and the reputation of the journals in
which it is published, are meant to blind us to the sheer immorality of
what they propose. But with however much academic pomp they propose their
theory, even a child (or perhaps especially a child) can see that they are
not wearing any clothes, and should be exposed as naked and ashamed.

Firstly, the authors propose that some human beings are more actual
persons than other human beings. The pigs in Animal Farm used the phrase
'some animals are more equal than others' to justify the abuses and
oppression of their rule over all other animals. [George Orwell, 1945.]
Likewise, Giubilini and Minerva use the concept of 'person' to make the
evil and morally repulsive act of infanticide sound right. Welcome
Newspeak 2.0.

The argument that one person or people group is less human or worthy
of respect than others, has been used to rationalise the worst evils in
human history. The Romans argued that Barbarians could be oppressed, taxed
and crucified, as opposed to Roman citizens. Abusers at Abu Ghraib prison
walked their victims on a leash like dogs, degrading them to the status of
animals or less. Blacks were argued to be less human than whites, so that
they could be sold as chattel, used and abused. Hitler justified his
"Endlosung" (final solution) to all of Germany's problems by defining Jews
and any non-Arians as being less human than Arians. Is that the kind of
society we want? Giubilini and Minerva merely substitute 'person' for
'human'. Otherwise the argument is similar. If we follow it, we will
become a society more callous and evil than that of Nazi Germany. Killing
our own newborns as if they were commodities. Treating babies as
disposable objects to keep or discard as we like.

Secondly, they play word games. There is the game of handpicking
their definitions to suit the purpose of supporting their proposal. For
instance "We take 'person' to mean ..." and "our definition of the concept
of harm ..." (italics mine). This is private opinion dressed up as
academic argument. Also, the whole proposition is based on a clever game
of circular definitions: a person is defined as one who can value harm or
benefit, and harm is defined as the loss of aims and plans which only a
person can value. Circular definitions prove as little as circular
reasoning - nothing.

Thirdly, the authors' argument centres on the false assumption that
the difference of a few days before or after birth makes so little
difference that it is zero. But little is not the same as zero, as anyone
with arsenic in their tea might appreciate. Africans are famous for
claiming that anyone can eat an elephant 'one slice at a time'. Giubilini
and Minerva must have asked themselves, 'How can we make infanticide look
philosophically sophisticated?' Answer: 'One day at a time.'

If parents can change their mind about keeping their baby one week
after his or her birth, why not a month or a year after birth? Or five
years, when other diagnoses may have come to light, such as Duchenne's
muscular dystrophy?

If one day makes no difference (even as momentous a day as that of a
baby's birth), then each one of us readers is at risk of being killed at
will, whatever our age. Indeed, the authors hint at this when they say,
'we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth
abortion would no longer be permissible'. If birth makes no difference,
then any limit is arbitrary, and someone will argue for 'just one day
more' until the victim has received their 100th birthday card.

Fourthly, the authors consistently refer to the foetus and newborn
eligible for abortion or killing by the pronoun 'she'. Though this most
likely represents a poor attempt at inclusive language, it does not
explicitly exclude covert support for selective abortion of female
foetuses or infanticide of baby girls. This is reinforced by their
statement that 'Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can
be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to
become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.'
(italics mine). In plain English this means that the flimsiest interest of
an older human has more value than the life of a newborn baby. That means
that if parents have any interest whatsoever to want a boy but not a girl,
they should be allowed kill their newborn baby girl and try again for a
boy.

My third response is one of surprise. Ironically Giubilini and
Minerva's reasoning serves the pro-life argument equally well. If killing
a newborn baby is called post-birth abortion, then equally abortion could
be called pre-birth killing. That is what the pro-life movement has argued
all along. The pro-choice movement has always meticulously avoided words
such as killing, insisting instead on euphemisms like 'termination' and
even 'abortion treatment' as if abortion cures a disease [Website of the
British Pregnancy Advisory Service, http://www.bpas.org/bpaswoman
(accessed 30th March 2012)].

Further, the authors claim that 'killing a newborn could be ethically
permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.' The exact
same reasoning can be used to argue that aborting a six week old embryo or
a 16-week old foetus could be ethically wrong in all the circumstances
where killing an infant or adult child is wrong. Surely the direction in
which the argument moves cannot make a substantial difference; whether it
moves forward in time from foetus to newborn, or backward in time from
child to newborn and foetus.

Giubilini and Minerva have given us much to consider. They have
created a perfect ethical storm without saying much new. I remember
reading their fellow Melbourne professor Peter Singer's work nearly thirty
years ago and encountering exactly the same arguments. [Kuhse H, Singer P.
Should the Baby live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985.] The title 'Why should the baby live?' points
clearly to Singer's 'Should the baby live?'. The authors' only innovation
is to widen the allowable reasons for infanticide from 'severe
abnormalities' (Singer); via diagnoses which come to light at some point
after birth; to 'the same reasons which justify abortion' (Giubilini and
Minerva). They even claim that any interest of any actual person (read:
adult, older child or even those animals they regard as persons!!),
however weak, is always of greater value than that of any newborn baby,
since the interest of the latter is zero. In plain English that means
infanticide on demand for the flimsiest of reasons. An adult dog has more
rights than a human newborn since the latter has none.

But what does their argument really show? That post-birth killing is
acceptable, or that pre-birth abortion is killing? That society is ageist,
protecting human babies after birth but allowing them to be killed before
birth? That baby P.'s abusers were not wrong to kill him but only wrong to
cause him pain and suffering in the process? That human capacity for
rationalising evil is endless? That ethicists can supply reasons to
justify any evil they wish to justify? That philosophy is like a knife
that can either kill or heal, depending on the decisions of the person who
manipulates it? That digging up old controversial ideas is the best way to
improve one's citation metrics and revive a flagging academic career?

Most of all, I believe, their argument shows that philosophical
ingenuity cannot make values for us human beings to live by, any more than
political spin can weave clothes for an emperor. The emperor will have to
find an honest tailor, and we human beings need to look elsewhere for a
reliable foundation for ethics.

Conflict of Interest:

Some people with very bad prognosis at birth and with a pack of bad
diagnoses grow up to become relatively happy people. Some don't. There are
many cases when fetuses that were presumed to have Down syndrome, apperaed
healthy babies at birth.
Courts try to avoid capital punishment and usually wait for years before
executing people with death sentence because of possible errors. Still,
sometimes (hovewer, rarely) truth com...

Some people with very bad prognosis at birth and with a pack of bad
diagnoses grow up to become relatively happy people. Some don't. There are
many cases when fetuses that were presumed to have Down syndrome, apperaed
healthy babies at birth.
Courts try to avoid capital punishment and usually wait for years before
executing people with death sentence because of possible errors. Still,
sometimes (hovewer, rarely) truth comes up after a person was executed.
So before even starting to think about the possibility of implementing the
"after-birth abortion" I would recommend authors to study at least several
thousands cases where infants were given bad prognoses, let's say, not
less than 20 years ago. If 99.99% will say that their lives was(is) not
worth living, that they are dreaming aboout being aborted or killed after
birth, then yes, the idea is worth thinking.
I even would let authors to include those who are already dead in this
99.99%. I assure you, many of these "sentenced to death" will appear
valuable and often happy people. Take Ruben Galliego, a quadriplegic,
father of two(?) who recently won a prestigious literature award for his
authobiography.
Or, take Hitler. He was healthy at birth, his mother did not do an
abortion, neither she wanted to have him up to the state. I believe, no
one in the human history caused so much grief and, yes, economcal losses
as this person, who definitely deserved to be annihilated at birth.
We will not solve the mankind problems by killing unwanted babies. Even
the sick ones.
However, severely ill babies really can ruin their families' lives. This
is a sad truth. Not everyone is capable of meeting such a challenge as
caring for a child that makes no progress. So even if the idea of
institutionalization didn't prove itself to be the best one, maybe it is
the solution that can, on the one side, gives babies with bad prognosis
(or unwanted ones) at least a chance to pull through, and, on the other
side, will let parents not to carry the burden they are not prepared to.
Or will give them time to reconsider. So I believe economical resources
should be used to build facilities where the goal would be not to
necesserily make an ill baby to survive, but rather give him a chance to
survive. Or, if his body fails, help him to die without suffering.
Sorry for errors, English is not my first language.

Conflict of Interest:

I notice you don't have the Giubilina and Minerva -paper on line. No doubt you have publisher's remorse, and wish to sweep this horror under the rug.
The paper would have been all right in a Nazi journal, perhaps edited by Dr. Mengele. It has no place in your precious, effete Journal of Medical Ethics
The storm of criticism is richly deserved. If the authors are M.D.s, their degrees should be rescinded. God knows I wouldn't wan...

I notice you don't have the Giubilina and Minerva -paper on line. No doubt you have publisher's remorse, and wish to sweep this horror under the rug.
The paper would have been all right in a Nazi journal, perhaps edited by Dr. Mengele. It has no place in your precious, effete Journal of Medical Ethics
The storm of criticism is richly deserved. If the authors are M.D.s, their degrees should be rescinded. God knows I wouldn't want them treating me or anyone else.
Freedom of expression, yes, but with lawful consequences.
William Goldsmith, M.D.
LC (ret) USAF

Conflict of Interest:

I had to vomit after reading your article praising the murder of
babies. I am the mother of 3 special needs children, two adopted from
China. My children are a precious gift who enrich all the lives they
touch. Which is a great deal more than I can say for you!!!! Just who do
you think you are to decide life or death for another. Is your name God?
Be thankful your parents let you live even though you have become the...

I had to vomit after reading your article praising the murder of
babies. I am the mother of 3 special needs children, two adopted from
China. My children are a precious gift who enrich all the lives they
touch. Which is a great deal more than I can say for you!!!! Just who do
you think you are to decide life or death for another. Is your name God?
Be thankful your parents let you live even though you have become the
greatest argument for your position.